How

Purposes can be Powerful

We all know how wonderful it is to have a life leading (or being led by) a
visionary purpose. The essay competition The Power of Purpose (www.powerofpurpose.org)
elicited many essays and personal testimonials that are witness to that. Some
investigations concerning the advances of modern science reported on
evidence that points to apparent purpose in the natural order.

But do we understand what is being demonstrated here? We want to
believe that purpose is powerful in human lives and probably in nature, but many
of us also believe in a science which knows nothing about purposes, and which
leaves little elbow room for purposes to have any effect! We want to
believe that purposes are powerful, but we do not really see how
this can be so. What is really going on when purposes influence the
world? What is the truth here?

We have deep problems as we try to form our sciences. We believe and intend
that purposes are effective, but we do not really know how to connect this
insight with our theoretical and empirical knowledge in the sciences. We may
have a good idea how purpose makes its mark in the religious, social and
psychological realms – as all the competition essays attest – but as yet we have
no good idea how purpose can be effective in biology and physics. These
two sciences are concerned with detail, and our details so far are
missing. This essay seeks first to justify this summary of our current
predicament, and then to convey a new vision of how purposes may be powerful,
and become real causes, in both the human and the natural worlds.

What does not exist cannot have any power. So, if a purpose is to have power,
it must exist, or it must be related to a causal aspect of what does exist.
Otherwise it would be a powerless epiphenomenon. Let us consider the preliminary
possibility that only natural things exist, so that powerful purposes might be
discoverable as aspects of natural causes.

Does nature itself act with a purpose? To form a precise question, consider
nature according to accepted physical laws. Some physical laws portray something
like ‘purpose’. There are laws of conservation of energy, laws of
thermodynamics, and variational principles. All these laws appear to describe
the reasons for the actual operation of nature. Physicists say that
‘entropy must never decrease’, and that ‘nature seeks the least action’, because
of laws like these. However, physicists have looked at the above laws,
such as the variational principle, and emphasize that it is not the case
that nature explores possibilities like humans do when thinking. In all cases,
to ask for the power of purpose according to the physical sciences is a tall
order, since physics knows little or nothing of those purposes we hold dear.

In another approach, many people believe that modern physics leaves small
gaps through which purposes may yet creep in, by means of the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle and the indeterminism of quantum physics. Physicists from
Eugene Wigner1 to Henry Stapp2 have suggested that mind can influence
nature at the point of measurement, by means of choosing some preferred outcome.
Others, such as John Polkinghorne3, suggest that indeterminism inherent in
chaotic systems allows a similar process.

However, while quantum physics may be indeterministic about the detailed
outcomes for some classes of microscopic events, namely decoherent measurements,
it is not completely arbitrary. Rather, it makes very precise predictions
for the probabilities of those outcomes, and, furthermore, the time
evolution of these probabilities is completely deterministic. Purposes might
allegedly choose when decohering measurements occur (as Stapp suggests),
or perhaps change the probabilities of different outcomes. In the first case,
the scope of influence is extremely limited, and hardly plausible as a means of
expressing powerful purposes. In the second case, purposes would change the
probability rules of quantum physics, in just the same way that they would have
to change Newton's laws of motion if they were to influence classical systems.
The long-term conservation of energy and momentum remains just as constraining
as before. Modern quantum physics by itself, therefore, leaves only miniscule
and insufficient gaps through which purposes may be effective.

So let us for a while suspend science’s natural cautiousness and its
‘methodological naturalism’, and consider the possibility of a new ‘science of
purposes’: a new programme of research that includes and builds on modern
science, though without its monist prejudices. We should not be timid or ashamed
about this, or feel that we lose the ground we stand on. Perhaps scientists
might worry that ‘anything goes’ if we do not stick with the foundations we
know, so we will need an extended view with definite structural principles,
and these should include (something like) current physics as a limiting case. We
seek an account that allows purposes to be causes, while agreeing with the
structures, events and processes that make up physics, chemistry, biochemistry
and biology. There may possibly be disagreement only about the underlying
causes.

This is of course, to start with, an intellectual exercise, but such an
exercise has its uses. Many of us have seen evidence for powerful purposes: in
ourselves, and elsewhere. But evidence for what, exactly? We need a
detailed theory here, one that could be verified or refuted like other
scientific theories, and fail or prevail. A theory would link disparate pieces
of evidence together, and then we think we begin to properly understand.
Parapsychology, for example, has stagnated from the lack of such a theory. A new
theory would make predictions. In fact, many experiments only suggest themselves
after a theory is under scrutiny. What is shameful is that we do not yet
have even a possible such theory. This portrays a serious lack of
imagination on the part of us theorists! Let me tell you, therefore, what
my vision suggests for such a theory. Then let us, like good scientists, judge
by the results.

☼

A new account is based on several principles taken to be universal, some of
which exist already in today’s science. Since I must be brief, consider the
following points:

Particular objects in the world exist, and all are composed of some
substance in some form. Pure forms without substance cannot exist,
whether they be information, mathematics or functions.

All existing things have irreducible causal powers: probabilistic
dispositions or propensities are an essential part of the nature of
everything existing.

For simplicity, take the substance of a thing not as something
unknowable, but as the underlying disposition or propensity from
which, according local structures, all its other dispositions and causal
properties may be derived.

The above principles are arguably the foundation of a realist interpretation
of quantum physics, as discussed further below. The essential dispositions of an
elementary particle are the propensities characterised by the charges, masses
and other quantum numbers that determine its capacities and probabilities for
interaction. Now for what is new:

Each stage of a generative triple is itself composed of parts
with this three-fold structure. Thus we have a recursive structure of
embedded details like a fractal. The next level of detail, for example,
would be an ennead of nine sub-degrees.

Physics and nature as we know them are not the whole picture, but are
in fact ‘merely’ the ‘event stage’ of a bigger picture operating with the
same structural principles.

The ‘big picture’ has a triple that is more commonly known as:
‘soul’ (propensity itself) à ‘mind’
(propensity in a form) à ‘body’ (visible
events).

At this global level, the ‘propensity’ should, if you are happy with
this terminology, be more accurately termed ‘spirit’ or ‘love’, and only the
‘body’ stage regarded as ‘natural’ and visible to physics.

Perhaps scientists imagine that there is no need for this kind of scheme, but
we are already suffering from a lack of precisely such universal ideas
from philosophy. This so far is a relatively simple vision that, like a fractal,
points to expanding vistas of complexity on closer examination. Unlike a
fractal, this scheme points to expanding ranges of quality within. Let us
see some details.

All stages are individually objects composed of some propensity (substance)
in some form. This applies to ‘soul’ and ‘mind’ as well as to the natural world.
Each is a really existing object (by principle 5) with causal powers (by
principles 1 and 2), at one of the following stages:

The above is a structure of recursively embedded discrete degrees that could
be expanded upon in much more detail. Consider some degrees as examples.

The final triple for ‘actual processes’ shows the operation of the
Schrödinger equation and decoherence, the most basic dynamism of quantum
physics. Physical energy is active, so is represented as a mathematical operator
which generates the space and time distribution of the wave function as
constrained by initial conditions. This distributed wave function, after some
finite time, produces actual events as the selection of one outcome among many
‘decoherent alternatives,’ as constrained by previous selections. The precise
nature of these selection events is so far only known in rather extreme cases
involving medium and large objects, so there is new physics to be discovered
here.

The overall structure of the ‘physical degree’ is currently much debated
among physicists. There is general agreement that the energy and wave functions
appearing in the ‘actual process’ degree are not simple, because kinetic energy
from mass and potential energy from interactions are both dynamically generated
by the virtual processes of quantum field theories. However, there is no good
agreement about the most fundamental stage of what gives rise to these
virtual processes, and, especially, what gives rise to the space-time background
for virtual events. I mention loop quantum gravity, as one attempt to explain
how space-time areas and volumes might be produced. There are many speculations
about quantum gravity, and how space-time might be dynamically generated, but
there is little agreement even about what such a theory should look like. I hope
that my present scheme would enable some general principles to be elucidated
that might guide theory formation, and enable eventually a realistic
interpretation to be found.

The triple for ‘mental sub-degrees’ shows the steps by which deep
motivational principles in the interior mind – purposes – lead to action. These
purposes come to fruition by means of discursive investigation of ideas, plans
and alternatives in the more exterior ‘scientific discursive mind’, as
constrained by existing intellectual abilities. The actions by the sensorimotor
mind select one outcome among many, as constrained by bodily conditions.
Moreover, psychologists who have investigated perceptive and executive processes
within the sensorimotor stage realise that these are far from simple. What we
see, for example, is very much influenced by our expectations and desires, as
well as being constrained, of course, by what is in front of our eyes. They
would agree that there are subsidiary degrees of expectation, presentation of
alternatives and resolution even during ‘simple’ sensations.

In order to encompass the above examples of operation in both physics and
psychology, let me postulate the following dynamical principle to apply
universally at all levels. The basic principle could be called
‘conditional generative causation’, according to which:

Changed propensities in each degree are
generated by prior propensities that act according to what is already actual
in both the current and subsequent degrees.

Each degree is therefore activated by ‘influx’ from prior stages, while the
present range of actualities constrains what influx is possible, and also how
propensities change at those prior degrees. The new science of purposes sees,
therefore, a whole multi-level structure linked everywhere together
asymmetrically: by influx from ‘above’, and by constraints from ‘below’. The
propensities (loves) of the very first degree are constant. The final degree of
actual selections in nature has no potentialities for changes to itself, so it
is the cumulative ‘bottom line’ that is fixed and permanent as history, and
therefore acts as kind of ultimate container to all previous degrees.

Note that there are detailed constituent events in both of any pair of prior
and produced degrees. Because of all these microscopic events, there will be
successive influx from the prior degree reciprocating with sequential
constraints by the produced degree, and this alternation will repeat itself
longest if the patterns of the constituent events are most similar in the
two degrees, and they do not get out of step. By a sort of survival of the
fittest, this in the long term gives rise to correspondences of function
between adjacent degrees. We may conversely say that the functions in distinct
degrees sustain each other in a kind of resonance when they are most similar in
the patterns of their constituent events. Our minds and brains sustain each
other by influx and constraint, for example, when psychological and neural
processes are most nearly isomorphic to each other in their functional
description. There is much detail here to be learned by derivation and
observation, not just in mind-brain functioning but throughout living organisms.
Discrete degrees are not of a continuous substance with each other, but, we see,
have functional relations that make them ‘contiguously intertwined’ at all
stages, and at all levels of detail at each stage.

How, in this vision, do we link with the physical degrees, and how do
purposes work in the apparent face of physical laws? Here, they do not squeeze
through any gaps in our explanations, but work through the normal processes by
means of which physical propensities are all originally generated from prior
loves. They follow this flow of influx, modifying it as allowed by the
constraints of what is already fixed at each stage.

For physics, this means that the ‘deepest principles’, such as the Lagrangian
subject to variations, and presumably the even deeper theories of quantum
gravity, will have certain parameters that depend on prior discrete degrees in
the rational and sensory minds. This is a new result in our science of
purposes. Does it break physical laws? First note that, on the realist position
here of objects being composed of all their propensities, physical laws are
identical with the description of how these propensities in fact operate.
Quantum electrodynamics, for example, describes how electrons of certain masses
and charges interact with each other and with photons. We need another law to
say how the propensities may themselves vary, or not vary. The details are part
of the general theory, still to be found, of pre-geometric processes. Do we know
for sure that the electron charge is constant? Physicists have in fact imagined
slow variations of this (the fine structure constant), but are we allowed to
speculate about local more rapid variations on neurological time scales? The
meaning of the laws of conservation of energy and momentum would have to be
reconsidered in such a situation. Presumably, physicists would conclude that the
system in question could not be considered sufficiently isolated.

A good new theory must allow a natural world that is not an illusion, nor
just the product of human minds. It should also be consonant with our best
accounts of psychology and theology. The power of purpose is not omnipotent, as
in some New Age stories, for in fact there is often resistance to the
elaboration of purposes. A good theory must explain the phenomenon of ‘contrary
tendencies’: of limitations as well as of empowerments, and of bitterness as
well as love.

Purposes, in this vision, are produced by particular forms of love –
particular affections – as these generate the next stage of thought, and begin
to be worked out in particular forms or ideas in the mind. We would thus
distinguish the loves of good things from the purpose or intention that works
towards achieving them.

Purposes therefore become powerful by working through, and modifying, the
normal routes by which loves and thoughts work through all of the pre-geometric
and virtual stages towards actual effects. Depending on what has already
actually happened in ourselves and in nature, purposes generate thoughts and
plans, and then also physical potentialities for the desired actual outcomes.
Sometimes historical actualities facilitate purposes by providing the materials
for the accomplishment of the end. At other times, they may slightly (or
sharply) limit the range of possible actions, and thwart the working out of
prior purposes. Such frustrating situations must be worked around, or limited
cooperation sought, since history cannot be abolished. That is the deepest
challenge for those being led by good purposes.

A theistic theory may possibly be based on the above scheme. This would take
all of the above, but now, as activated by an ‘influx of propensities’ from the
Divine Source in a manner similar to the way that discrete degrees sustain each
other. This would also explain how to sustain inanimate nature apart from living
creatures. The whole soul/mind/nature ‘created structure’ would not be
self-sustaining, but all its processes and sub-processes would come themselves
to have eventually a functional form that is an image and likeness of the
details of the Source. The Divine would presumably be a unity that has infinite
and perfect details. It (He) would again not be of a continuous substance with
creation, but of a distinct discrete degree that is yet intertwined and
ultimately sustaining at all stages of every particular finite object,
“rewarding each one according to his ways and according to the fruit of his
deeds”6. He “sends rain on the just and on the unjust”7, and we only vary in our
reception depending on how our historical actions give present constraints. This
may be already known to many of us – the challenge is to enable connections with
the rest of our knowledge about nature as well as about people.

☼

Maybe it is too soon for these kinds of ideas to be accepted in science,
since not all the simpler options have been examined and found wanting. My
aim here, therefore, is to demonstrate in a sort of existence proof that it is
possible to have a scientific theory of mind and purposes which is
coherent with good physics and good psychology, while also being spiritually
plausible. This is not a mathematical theory, but is more an elucidation of what
general ideas could replace those of ‘particle’, ‘wave’ and ‘field’ to describe
the substances by means of which we interpret our equations, and what kinds of
structural and dynamical relations the new substances should have.

Where do we have to search in history for a vision along these lines? Antonio
Damasio8 recently found fruitful similarities with the works of Baruch Spinoza
(1632-1677) for his vision of unified mind and body. I do not need to go back
that far, as I find the essentials of the above ideas already in the writings of
Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772). With Swedenborg9, the ideas are firmly embedded
in a radical reworking of Christian theology, philosophy and psychology, and we
need now at least similar concepts to help form new scientific theories.

The ideas discussed here should not just remain in books long ago published,
in our imaginations, or in short essays of today, but must be expanded and
examined for explanatory and predictive power, to enable the development of a
new science of purposes. Empirical testing then becomes practicable. Then, and
only then, will we have demonstrated how purpose in a vision has power in
a life, to struggle against (and with) the limitations of what already exists
and who we already are. Then, to the benefit of all society, we will know for
sure how inspired purposes in our lives have power within both our human and our
natural worlds.